By
It’s been quite a week for Ed Martin. A week ago, the hyper-partisan lawyer whom Donald Trump appointed to serve as the U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., received some unwelcome news: Martin’s prosecutorial nomination, the president grudgingly conceded, was dead. The bipartisan opposition to the “Stop the Steal” activist in the Senate was simply too much to overcome.
Soon after, however, Martin learned that he’d land on his feet: Trump said the Missouri Republican would lead the Justice Department’s new “Weaponization Working Group” — tackling a problem that only exists in the minds of Republican conspiracy theorists — and serve as the DOJ’s new pardon attorney, succeeding Elizabeth Oyer, who was fired in March allegedly after she refused to sign off on a plan to restore Mel Gibson’s gun rights.
A few days later, Martin announced at a press conference that he intended to use his new working group to “name” and “shame” individuals the Justice Department determines it is unable to charge with crimes. In other words, federal law enforcement officials might investigate suspects, only to discover that the suspects didn’t break any laws.
At that point, according to Martin, his working group will take steps to smear these Americans publicly anyway — which, as an NBC News report noted, “would amount to a major departure from longstanding Justice Department protocols.”
But if that weren’t quite enough, as NBC News also reported, Martin learned this past week that he’s facing an investigation of his own.
The incoming director of the Justice Department’s ‘Weaponization Working Group’ revealed Wednesday he was under investigation by D.C.’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel, accusing the official in charge of investigating bar complaints of ‘weaponizing’ his role, according to an letter viewed by NBC News.
The disciplinary counsel’s probe didn’t come out of nowhere. On the contrary, in early March, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee formally requested that the group that governs the legal bar in the District of Columbia investigate Martin, insisting that he’d “abused” his prosecutorial powers — a claim rooted in extensive evidence.
They weren’t alone. In April, a group of former Jan. 6 prosecutors and conservative attorneys also sought a disciplinary investigation into Martin from the Office of Disciplinary Counsel at the U.S. District Court of Appeals, arguing the Republican activist had demonstrated a “fundamental misunderstanding of the role of a federal prosecutor.”
For his part, Martin condemned the investigation he’s facing in a going-away email to former colleagues in the U.S. attorney’s office, calling the probe “an outrage.” True to form, Martin proceeded to complain that Disciplinary Counsel Hamilton P. “Phil” Fox III, who serves as chief prosecutor for disciplinary matters for attorneys who are members of the D.C. Bar, was “weaponizing his role.”
Or put another way, when Martin is targeting his perceived political foes, he’s combatting “weaponization.” When Martin is being held accountable for his alleged abuses, he’s the victim of “weaponization.”
Time will tell what, if anything, comes of the investigation, but in a worst-case scenario, the disciplinary probe could result in Martin losing his law license in the nation’s capital.